When is it actually enough diplomacy? This first came up as a major point of contention as far as I'm aware in the Six Million Dollar War, and again in this (as yet unnamed war).
People will say one side or another didn't try enough diplomacy, or give the other side enough time. When is it enough?
I would challenge the assumption that diplomacy must be lengthy and drawn out over days. After all when dealing with unauthorized attacks it typically takes but moments "no hes not ours, feel free to roll him" "yes hes ours, pardon me while I smack him upside the head, where shall we send the money?". Is there some underlying reason that its impossible to solve other issues as rapidly?
While everyone can agree that diplomacy makes the world go round, there are points where its just not worth pursuing any longer or has been ended by some other deeper disagreement. Diplomacy after all is about a negotiated settlement that is presumably somewhere between the best case each party had initially hoped for. If you establish rapidly that one or both sides have an immutable position would not negotiations end quickly while still being fully complete?
To use the Six Million Dollar War as an example, because it is quite frankly a great example, almost text book. If one party tells the other that a specific action will mean war, and that specific action occurs, what is left to talk about? At what point does one negotiate from there? Even if the conversation were to last but moments, is that not a complete discussion?
I don't have a point, I'm thinking out loud, though I'm genuinely curious about an answer to any or all of these questions.
- Read more...
- 5 comments
- 156 views